Satya Prakash Ravidas v. Union Of India And ORS
$~71 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 18571/2025 & CM APPL. 3915/2026 SATYA PRAKASH RAVIDAS .....Petitioner Through:
Ms. Radhika Vashisht and Mr. Yash Sethi, Advs. with petitioner in person.
versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through:
Mr. Ashish K Dixit, CGSC with Mr.
Gautam Yadav, Mr. Umar Hashmi, Mr. Adhiraj Singh, GP with Ms. Iqra Sheikh, Advs. for R-1 to 5.
Mr Dhruv Rohatgi, PC, GNCTD with Ms. Chandrika Sachdeva and Mr Dhruv Kumar, Advs. for GNCTD.
Mr. Anil Dutt, Adv. for R-8and9.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
O R D E R
% 20.04.2026 1.
The petition is for directions to respondent-authorities to restrain all activities being conducted under the banner 'Raj Vidya Kender (South)' or any other similar name in the State of Telangana and to take action against the purported illegal activities of the said organization. 2.
The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the purported discrepancies in the management and affairs of 'Raj Vidya Kender (RVK)', a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. According to him, certain individuals, falsely claiming to be office bearers of the said society, The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
have established an unauthorized branch under the banner 'Raj Vidya Kender (South)' without having any legal authority. 3.
The petitioner claims to have presented written complaints to the concerned police authorities seeking necessary action in this regard, however, no action has been taken till date.
4.
On earlier dates, upon noting that the petitioner had filed various petitions pertaining to the same organization, including W.P.(C) 15987/2025, wherein similar reliefs had been sought and the judgment therein had been reserved, the Court had deferred the hearing in this petition. 5.
The coordinate Bench, in the said decision titled Satya Prakash Ravidas v. Alakh Niranjan Prasad Singhna and Ors.,1 has dismissed the petitions, finding that the grievance raised by the petitioner related to the internal management of the society in question and cannot be adjudicated by the Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Paragraph no. 35 of the decision is extracted below, for reference: "35. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, the reliefs sought by the petitioner, which squarely impinge upon the internal affairs of the concerned society, are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issues as regards the petitioner's claim to be named as caretaker of RVK; challenges to the sale deed of Patna ashram property; alleged irregularities in alienation, mutation, transfer, construction or demolition of properties; allegations of fictitious membership, or claims that the society has become defunct, are all matters concerning the internal affairs of the society. Any grievance in respect thereof can only be examined by a competent civil court having jurisdiction."
6.
The said decision has been upheld by the Division Bench in L.P.A 240/2026 vide order dated 09.04.2026. The relevant portion of the order dated 09.04.2026 is extracted below, for reference: The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
"9. We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has taken a correct view in the matter and has rightly disposed of W.P.(C) 15987/2025, and the impugned judgment so far as it relates to disposal of W.P.(C) 15987/2025 is concerned, does not, in our opinion, call for any interference by this Court."
7.
Similarly, the lis involved in this petition relates to the internal management of the society in question. Under Section 5 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, suits may be instituted against societies. The Court is of the opinion that the petitioner ought to have raised his grievance before the competent Civil Court. The petitioner, on the other hand, has not been able to satisfy the Court as to why the decision of the coordinate Bench ought not to be followed.
8.
For the reasons specified above, the petition stands dismissed. 9.
The petitioner shall be at liberty to pray for an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J APRIL 20, 2026/P 1 2026:DHC:837 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.